MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185995897 · doi:10.1080/23311932.2021.1954817

Determinants of beekeeping adoption by smallholder rural households in Northwest Ethiopia

2021· article· en· W3185995897 on OpenAlexaff
Adino Andaregie, Tess Astatkie

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Food & Agriculture · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeekeepingLivelihoodMarital statusBinary logit modelBusinessPovertySocioeconomicsLogistic regressionGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Household incomeRural areaEstimationEconomic growthAgricultureGeographyEconomicsPopulationEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an enormous potential for beekeeping practices to generate income, create jobs, and alleviate poverty. However, in Ethiopia, there are many constraints that hinder rural households to expand and adopt beekeeping practices. The objective of this study was to analyze the determinants of beekeeping adoption in Northwest Ethiopia. To achieve the objective, cross-sectional data were collected from 369 rural households and analyzed using a nonlinear econometric (binary logistic regression) model. The maximum likelihood estimation results revealed that sex, marital status, household size, and the educational status of the household head, number of extension visits, membership in a farmers’ association, and access to credit were the statistically significant variables determining beekeeping adoption in the study area. The beekeeping constraints that had statistically significant influence on beekeeping adoption were grouped as marketing, natural, and financial. To reap the benefits from the huge potential of honeybee colonies, the government of Ethiopia and other associated actors and stakeholders should work together to solve the constraints faced by rural households in adopting beekeeping practices that could result in improving their livelihoods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Food & AgricultureSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207